S.108 Customs Act | Statements Recorded By Customs Officers Sufficient To Proceed To Trial: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has refused to discharge one of the accused in a CBI corruption case, holding that in the present case, statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, along with other materials constitute sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed to trial.

“Thus, in the instant case, prima facie, there are materials to proceed with trial of the revision petitioner/accused No.3. No doubt, the evidentiary value of approvers and how far the same to be believed and acted upon, and similarly how far the extra judicial confession and how far the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are matters to be decided after trial,” Justice A. Badharudeen observed.

The court was hearing a revision petition filed by one of the accused in a CBI case pending before the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI Cases)-III, Ernakulam, challenging the dismissal of his discharge plea.

The prosecution alleges that several customs officials received illegal gratification from passengers for releasing dutiable goods without imposing customs duty or penalty.

As against the petitioner, who is a also a customs officer, the allegation is that he received Rs 30,000 from one passenger for releasing gold ornaments, Rs 15,000 from another passenger for releasing passport and baggage containing dutiable goods, and Rs 15,000 from one Kattappani Abdul Rifay for similar release of goods.

The petitioner contended that the prosecution relies on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, including those of co-accused, and argued that such material is insufficient to frame charges without corroboration.

Rejecting the contention, the court held that at the stage of discharge the court cannot conduct a mini trial but must only see whether a prima facie case or strong suspicion exists.

The Court noted that Section 108 statements are recorded by gazetted Customs officers and are generally admissible in evidence, not being hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. The question of corroboration and evidentiary weight must be decided during trial.

It also recorded that certain co-accused who implicated the petitioner were granted pardon under Section 306 CrPC and now stand as approvers. Their probative value is likewise a matter for trial. The evidentiary worth of CCTV material must also be tested during trial.

Finding sufficient prima facie material, the court upheld the special judge's order and dismissed the revision plea.